""““THE MIND: 

AN INTRODUCTORY LECTURE, 


4BF 
1132 
Copy 1 


DELIVERED NOVEMBER 4th, 1875, 
By D. A. MORSE, M.D., 

— OF — 

LOlTDOlSr, QXXXO- 

Professor of Nervous Disorders and Insanity, 
Starling Medical College, Columbus, O. 




CINCINNATI: 

GAZETTE COMPANY PRINT, N. E. CORNER FOURTH AND VINE STS. 

1875 . 


Reprint of Lancet and Observer, January, 1876. 


























































































THE MIND: 


AN INTRODUCTORY LECTURE, 

DELIVERED NOVEMBER 4th, 1875, 
By D. A. MORSE, M.D., 


— OF- 

LONDON, OIHIIO- 


Professor of Nervous Disorders and Insanity, 
Starling- Medical College, Columbus, O. 



CINCINNATI: 

GAZETTE COMPANY PRINT, N. E. CORNER FOURTH AND VINE STS. 

1875. 

7T 


Titles of some* o± the published Lectures. Papers, 
Society Addresses, etc., of Prof. D. A. Morse, and 
where published. 

Vicarious Menstruation, Lancet and Observer, 1865. 

Anomalous Position of the Kidneys, Lancet and Observer, 18G6. 

Delirium Tremens, Lancet and Observer, 1867. 24 pp. 

Cause and Nature of Diphtheria, Society Address, Lancet and Observer, 1867. 10 pp. 
Criminal Abortion—Why not? Review of Storer’s book, Lancet and Observer, ’67. 13 pp. 
Papers on Camp Diarrhooea, Double Femoral Artery; Contagion; and Cimicif uga, in Med¬ 
ical and Surgical Reporter, 1866, 

Cerebral Circulation, Lecture delivered at Charity Hospital Medical College. Course of 
Physiology and Pathology, Dec. 6, 1867, Lancet and Observer, 1868. Synopsis of 
Lectures on Digestion, Lancet and Observer, Ibid , 14—21 pp. 

Cerebral Paresis, Lancet and Observer. 1868. 7 pp. 

Pneumonia Repretory, 1868. 

Duties of Medical Witness and his Privileges. Introductory Lecture to Course of Med¬ 
ical Jurisprudence and Insanity, January 3, 1870, in Indiana Medical College. 
Lancet and Observer, 1870. 22 pp. 

Questions Medico-Legal: Antenuptial Incontinence and Venerial Disease as a Ground 
of Divorce. Based upon an Illinois case, submitted to the Author for an 
Opinion. 12 pp. 

OHIO STATE MEDICAL SOCIETY REPORTS. 

Dipsomania and Drunkeness, 1873. 52 pp. Transactions. 

Monomania, 1874. 46 pp. “ 

General Paralysis and Blackburn Case,’74. 120 pp. “ 

Copies of these three Reports will be mailed to any address on receipt of SI 00. 

Medical Opinions. 

“ Dipsomania and Drunkeness. By D. A. Morse, M. D. No better paper has ever been 
published upon this subject.” ( Journal Materia Medica, May, 1874). 

*• In a full and learned article by Dr. D. A. Morse published in the Transactions of the 
Society last year, the opinion of the Profession is embodied.” ( Report of Special Committee 
upon State Inebriate Asylum, Trans. 1874. John W. Russell, Chairman of Committee). 

General Paralysis. “ This elaborate paper displays much industry and enthusiasm on the 
part of its author. It reviews pretty fully the literature, mostly foreign, concerning the 
symptomatic history, diagnosis, and pathology of General Paralysis, of the Insane. * * 

The Paper will be of great use to those who are called on in similar cases (i. e. Blackburn 
case), as indicating pretty fully the teachings of the leading authorities bearing on the sub¬ 
ject. ( Chicago Journal of Nervous and Mental Disease). 

“ Able and interesting Reports.” Prof. A. Sager, M. D., late Dean of the Medical Fac¬ 
ulty, University Michigan. 

REVIEWS.— Reports for the Last Year to the Ohio State Medical Society. 

By reference to these Reports, it will be seen that there Is represented in them much of 
all that is known on the subject of Dipsomania, while the literature of General Paralysis 
is quite fully presented. There is no other book known to the Profession that treats the 
subject in the same way, or that gives more of it. Dr. Maudsley, of London, Eng., says: 

‘ It is very valuable, containing so much in so little space.’ The report on ‘ Monomania’ 
defines Instinct, Intuition, Consciousness, etc. It is both metaphysical and physiological, 
which is the only true method of mental study. 

Dr. D A. Morse, of London, Ohio, the accomplished author, has made these and kind¬ 
red subjects his study for many years, and lie gives the result to the Public in a most read¬ 
able and instructive manner? ( American Medical Weekly, Aug. 7,1875). 

* Others upon Cholera, various phases of Insanity, Malpractice, etc., are omitted for 
want of space. 



THE MIND: 


INTRODUCTORY LECTURE, 
Delivered at Starling- Medical College, Nov. 4, 1875, 
By D. A. MORSE, M.D. 


Professor of Nervous Disorders and Insanity. 


What is the Mind ?—How is it related to matter? Is it a 
property of Matter ? How are Mind, the Vital, and Physical 
Forces related ? From what standpoint shall we study the 
mind—i. e., shall we pursue the Physiological or the Psycho¬ 
logical Method ? 

Gentlemen :—In presenting an introductory to my course, 
I shall not apologize to you for having neglected to set forth, 
as if it were required, its merits, its claims upon the Profession, 
or its practical importance ; to do so would create the presump¬ 
tion that otherwise it would not receive from you the attention 
to which it is entitled. 

The frequency of nervous and mental disorders ; the almost 
incredible expenditure of money by every nation for the treat¬ 
ment of this class of patients; the life-long earnest devotion 
of hundreds of our profession, exclusively to the study and in¬ 
vestigation of these obscure and difficult subjects, changes to 
you, except you give them most thorough and careful exami¬ 
nation, the burden of an apology. 

The questions I have presented are those which, to-day, as 
in all the past of mental science, excite most attention, and 
from the fact that science cannot settle them, most controversy. 
I am not unmindful, that in selecting questions that have ab¬ 
sorbed with so little success, the attention of so many thinking 
men, that my efforts will prove an elaboration of the subject to 
be considered, a multiplication of inquiries, rather than a so- 


[4] 

lution of mysteries, or a satisfactory reply to the questions 
presented; nor am I unmindful that however well discussed 
these great and interesting problems may be, the startling 
truth ever will confront us and declare that, when we pass 
from the world of Matter to the world of Mind, our proud in¬ 
tellects will be humbled with the conscious impotence of 
finite mind, and its utter inability to penetrate the darkness 
that obscures the work of the Infinite, and discover the secrets 
of the Almighty. 

The profound mystery of the union of Mind and Matter,of their 
intercourse, and of the influence of Mind upon Matter, has in all 
ages bewildered the most learned philosopher, and although his 
allotted three score years and ten have been passed in a sur¬ 
vey of it, he has been able, as a result of his labors, to trans¬ 
mit to succeeding generations but his own inheritance?- The 
simple fact, that apart from the phenomena of mind, the man¬ 
ifestations of mind, operating through its material instrument, 
we have no knowledge of mind, and that mind as a separate 
existence, when isolated from matter, is wholly a subject of 
Faith—dependent upon revelation. Man being adapted to a 
material universe, dependent upon a material organization, 
must be subject to the laws that govern the instrument upon 
which his mind acts to produce its phenomena, and it having 
power to reveal itself only through the co-operation of a 
physical world, it is not a source of astonishment that man, 
when engaged in a study of mind, in relation to matter, should 
become embarrassed and lost; and doubting the reality of what 
he cannot comprehend, despising the voice of Revelation, de¬ 
clare that he is a product of matter, a creature of blind neces¬ 
sity, exhibiting in his phenomena but a display of the laws of 
the physical world, thus identifying mind and matter. 

With these views or theories I have no sympathy. To me 
it seems more credible, that all existing things had their origin 
in the operation of an intelligent First Cause than that matter 
organized itself into living forms, or that the forces supposed 
to be resident in it can be self-acting. 

While this is the true line of demarkation which separates 
materialism from the Spiritual theories, the real battle ground 
of the philosophies, there are multitudes of other theories, 
that in past time have governed the productions of the most 
powerful intellects of the ages in which they lived. These 
views have been as numerous, as diverse, and as well defended 
as language would enable their respective advocates to render 
them; and in many of them we recognize not only the germ, 
but the fully mature views of writers of the present day. In 


[5] 

the views we cite, we use, as these writers themselves have 
done, mind and soul as indicating the intellect, whether correct 
or not. 

Philosophy made its first start in Ionia, then a Grecian 
colony. From Ionia it extended to other colonies, and at 
last to Greece proper, where, in consequence of trouble with 
Italy and Persia, it was centered at Athens, and from this in¬ 
tellectual center radiated over all Greece. Philosophy found 
its origin in an attempt to determine the elementary principle 
of the world. The first notions were disseminated by oral 
teachings, and handed down by tradition. 

Thales, B. C., 600, of Miletus, in Ionia, was the first Grecian 
who applied reason to determine the origin of the world. He 
made experiments, and concluded that water was the original 
element, and spirit (vobc) the impulsive principle. From the 
action of the magnet, he inferred that everything had a soul 
and was full of divinity. 

Pythagoras, B. C., 550, belonging to the same period, taught 
that mind and soul are emanations from the great central fire 
—the Sun. The Sun (the seat of Jupiter) was the most per¬ 
fect object in Nature; the principle of heat, and consequently 
of life, permeating and vivifying all things. He regarded the 
soul as being in constant activity, capable of combining with 
any body, and compelled to pass through several successive 
stages. It is supposed that Pythagoras borrowed this theory 
from the Egyptians. (Herodt. ii—123.) Pythagoras is sup¬ 
posed also to be the first who attempted, rude as it was, an 
analysis of the operations and faculties of the mind. The in¬ 
tellect or understanding was located in the brain; the will 
and appetites in the heart. He made a distinction between 
the human and the animal soul. 

Heraclitus, B. C., 500, attributed everything to fire—which 
he thought to be the elementary principle upon which every 
thing depended—the foundation of all things. He believed 
that all Force is identical—the principle physical force the 
same as that of thought. Here we find the germ of the doc¬ 
trine, if not the doctrine itself, of the equivalence or correla¬ 
tion of force, i. e., that heat, light, electricity, chemical affini¬ 
ty,* vital force, and mind are identical, and are but different 
modes of motion. 

Moschus, B. C., 500, advocated what is known as the atomic 
theory. The elementary principles that figured in this system, 
were atoms, motion, and vacuum. The atoms are the ultimate 
elements of all that is real. They are invariable, indivisible, 
and imperceptible. They occupy space—are infinitely diver- 


*some of the writers exclude chemical affinity from the list. 



[ 6 ] 

sified—those that are round, possess motion. By their union 
all things have their origin, while their separation is dissolu¬ 
tion. Their modification and properties are determined by 
the position and order of particles, and take place in obedience 
to a law of absolute necessity. This is a shadow of Huxley’s 
Protoplasm, or Physical Basis of Life. The atomic theory was 
to some extent believed in by Sir Isaac Newton, who believed 
that between the atoms the imperceptible space was filled 
with a subtile ether. Hartly made this the basis of his Phi¬ 
losophy, A. I). 1749, and taught that vibrations of this subtile 
fluid caused the phenomena observed. 

Anaxagoras, 500 B. 0., taught the existence of the intellec¬ 
tual principle. 

Democritus, the laughing philosopher, B. C., 494, taught the 
atomic theory of Moschus, expanded it, and extended it to the 
whole universe—embracing the heavenly bodies. The soul he 
believed to be composed of fire, in the form of globular atoms, 
which impart motion to the body. 

Diogenes, B. C., 472, taught that air was the fundamental 
principle of all Nature. He imputed to it intellectual energy. 

Archalaus, B. C., 472, believed all things were disengaged 
by two discordant principles, from Chaos. These principles 
were heat and cold, or fire and water. 

Empedocles, B. C., 460, made four elements : earth, air, fire 
and water. The soul he located in the blood, and consisted in 
a union of these four elements. 

Socrates, B. C., 470, regarded the soul as a divine nature; 
and on account of the power of reason and its invisible energy, 
thought it immortal. He was a powerful antagonist of the 
Sophists, who had an apparent , superficial knowledge, and who 
desired to distinguish themselves rather by the show of pre¬ 
tended knowledge, by raising ridiculous, fanciful, intricate, or 
useless questions, and tricks of logic, rather than by a desire to 
develop truth. This proved, however, the beginning of a more 
thorough investigation of the foundation on which philosophy 
rests, the Sophists compeling their opponents to adopt syste¬ 
matic methods of proof. The Sophists, like most of the Phys¬ 
iological School of the present day, attempted to so confound 
truth and error, to so explain away all foundations of truth, 
religion, and morality, that even the existence of things was 
doubtful. They declared that nothing real exists. Socrates 
encountered these men with only appeals to their good sense 
and consciousness of moral principles. He taught the duty 
of man towards himself and others, to his country, the prac¬ 
tice of virtue and morality. His chief power to control the 


[7] 

masses lay in the affectation of profound ignorance, and by his 
acute reasoning seemingly draw .out the truth by almost im¬ 
perceptible powerfully convincing advances. His popularity 
and success caused so great envy and hatred that he was put 
to death, B. C., 400, by Hemlock. 

Plato, B. C., 430, was a Rationalist, and founded his system 
at the Academy at a time when reason was powerful, and the 
union of the Porch and Academy was approaching. His chief 
persuasive power, like Socrates, lay in his gradual approach to 
the truth, for which, as better suited to his purpose, he em¬ 
ployed dialogues. He first taught the doctrine of innate ideas 
which Locke combats so vigorously in his Metaphysics. 
These innate ideas Plato regarded as the eternal type of 
things. Plence knowledge is not the result of experience but 
only developed by it. The soul he regarded as a self-acting 
energy, and as having an existence separate from the body. 
Virtue he defined to be imitation of God. perfect harmony re¬ 
sulting in no other way. We will give his views concerning 
the relation of soul and body hereafter. 

Aristotle, B. C., 384, regarded the soul as the active princi¬ 
ple of life. The soul is distinct from the body, but of the same 
form and inseparable therefrom. The faculties of the soul he 
regarded to be: Production, Nutrition, Sensation, Thought 
and Will, or Impulse. He is the first to recognize distinctly 
what metaphysicians term Consciousness. He discussed our 
means of knowledge, common sense, imagination, memory, 
and recollection. He blended all the forces as identical. He 
was the first who taught physiology. 

Aristoxenus, B. C., 320, regarded the soul as a vital energy, 
inherent in the body, a harmony elicited from the body as 
those elicited from the chords of an instrument. 

Epicurus, B. C., 337, advocated the atomic theory. He re¬ 
garded the soul as material, its elementary principles are 
heat, and some nameless untangible ether spirit, upon which 
sensibility depends. This ether he thought to be dispersed 
throughout the body. In this we see the germ of Hartley’s 
“ vibrations. ” It is also in some respects the theory enter¬ 
tained by Sir Isaac Newton. 

Zeno, B. C., 260, was a physiologist, and in his physiology 
taught that sensation and perception are the basis of knowl¬ 
edge—there are two eternal principles of all things : Matter, 
which is passive; and divinity, which is active ; the source of 
all activity, another of form and arrangement. By this 
theory God is in the world, not without. Hence the world is a 
living being. This divine soul not only filled the world, but 


all created things, and is the soul of man, is corporal and 
perishable. Zeno was a Stoic. This ended Grecian philoso¬ 
phy, or extended to the period of the new Academy when the 
Romans began to figure in it. Among the first of these to at¬ 
tract attention was Cicero, the orator. He left a number of 
works which throw more light upon the history of philosophy 
than add new lustre to it. He accepted mainly the views of 
Plato—was a Stoic in principle—as a man, was moral in his 
private life. 

Thus might we continue and multiply views, showing those 
entertainecf by the Jews, the Fathers of the church in the mid¬ 
dle ages, passing on down to the philosophy of modern times. 
The writers of this period are numerous ; in fact, so extensive 
is the literature of the last two or three centuries that, were 
you to attempt to wade through it, you would be discouraged 
at the onset by merely examining the list of more important 
writers. It is- impossible to name a theory that some one has 
not advocated. 

Sir John Davies, a writer upon the immortality of the soul, 
has in a short poem well expressed the variety and diversity 
of views entertained by writers, as well as the difficulty of 
presenting new theories : 

“ Musicians think our souls are harmonies ; 

Physicians hold that they complexions be ; 

Epicures make them swarms of atomies ; 

Which do by chance into our bodies flee. 

“ One thinks the soul is air; another fire; 

Another blood diffused about the heart; 

Another saith the elements conspire, 

And to her essence each doth yield a part. 

“ Some think one general soul fills every brain, 

As the bright sun sheds light in every star ; 

And others think the name of soul is vain, 

And that we only well-mixed bodies are. 

“ Thus these great clerks their little wisdom show, 

While with their doctrines they at hazzard play ; 

Tossing their light opinions to and fro, 

To mock the lewd, as learned in this as they. 

“ For no crazed brain could ever yet propound, 

Touching the soul so vain and fond a thought, 

But some among these masters have been found, 

Which in their schools the self-same thought have taught. ” 

Whilst it may be agreeable and interesting to study the 
past history of mental science, and as metaphysicians roam 
in imagination through the broad universe constructing 
theories that will explain its origin and that of mind, or ex- 


[9] 

plocling theories of others as to the nature of the mind, we 
must proceed to consider the more important-matters of the 
lecture. 

As our questions intimate, there are two antagonistic, or 
essentially different methods of investigation of mental activi¬ 
ty, two distinct schools. We say antagonistic, for by their 
respective adherents they are made such, but by a true 
method they become each the counterpart or interpreter of 
the other. These are the physiological and the psychological 
'methods. 

The Physiological school bases its theories upon the anatomy 
and physiology of the brain ; to them mind is but the result of 
cerebral organization. Cabanis taught, and many of this school 
after him, that the brain secretes mind as the liver bile, 
and that a diseased brain gives rise to a diseased mind in the 
same way that a diseased liver or stomach gives rise to derang- 
ed secretion. 

Bain, a distinguished writer of this school, advances the fol¬ 
lowing as evidences that the function of the brain is to pro¬ 
duce mind. He says : 

“ The brain is the principal, although not the sole organ of 
mind, and its leading functions are mental. The proofs of 
this position are these : 

1. u The physical pain of excessive mental excitement is 
located in the head. In extreme muscular fatigue, pain is 
felt in the muscles; irritation of the lungs is referred to the 
chest, indigestion to the stomach, and when mental excerise 
brings on acute irritation, the local seat is the head. 

2. “ Injury or disease of the brain affects the mental powers ; 
a blow on the head destroys consciousness ; physical alterations 
of the nervous substance, as seen after death, are connected 
with loss of speech, loss of memory, insanity, or some other 
mental deprivation or derangement. 

3. “ The products of nervous waste are more abundant after 
mental excitement. These products, eliminated mainly by the 
kidneys, are the alkaline phosphates combined in the triple 
phosphate of ammonia and magnesia. Phosphorus is a charac¬ 
teristic ingredient of the nervous substance. 

4. “ There is a general connection between the size of the 
brain and mental energy; in the animal series intelligence in¬ 
creases with the development of the brain. The human brain 
exceeds the animal brain, and the most advanced races of men 
have, as a general rule, brains of an unusual size. The aver¬ 
age weight of the brain is 48 oz ; the brain of Cuvier weighed 
64 oz. Idiots commonly have small brains. 


[ 10 ] 

5. “ By specific experiments on the brain and nerves, it is 
shown that they are indispensable to the mental function. ” 
Hence the conclusion that mind is the result of cerebral or¬ 
ganization. In it we see only what is admitted by the Psycho¬ 
logical school as evidence that the brain is the organ or the 
instrument of the mind. 

Prof. Leibig, an advocate of the views of this school, de¬ 
clares that “ in the universal body we recognize as ultimate 
cause of all force only one cause, the chemical action which the 
elements of the food and the oxygen of the air mutually exer¬ 
cise on each other. The only known ultimate cause of vital 
force, either in animals or in plants, is a chemical 'process. If 
this be prevented the phenomena of life do not manifest them¬ 
selves.” 

Prof. Gr. F. Barker, of Yale, in a lecture on the Correlation 
of the Vital and Physical Forces, in 1870, said : “ No doubt can 
be entertained that the actual energy of the muscle is simply 
the converted potential carbon of the food. A muscle, there¬ 
fore like a steam engine is a machine for converting the po¬ 
tential energy of carbon into motion.” He says : “ Chemis¬ 

try teaches that though force, like muscular force comes from 
food, and demonstrates that the force evolved by the brain 
like that produced by the muscle comes not from the disinte¬ 
gration of its own tissue, but is the converted energy of burn¬ 
ing carbon. Can we longer doubt then, that the brain, too, is 
a machine for the conversion of energy ? Can we longer re¬ 
fuse to believe that our thought is in some mysterious way 
correlated to the natural forces ? And this even in the face 
of the fact that it has never yet been measured ?” 

When I was a student I was taught to believe in the exist¬ 
ence of vital force, the anima of Stolil, the vis medicatrix 
naturae of Cullen, the so-called conservative power of nature of 
other writers. This doctrine as taught by the physiological 
school does away with this force, substituting chemical action. 
Virchow says, “ The old doctrine of a vital power is a pure 
superstition, a doctrine of the devil, a search after the philoso¬ 
pher’s stone.” I must confess that I am in this respect 
very superstitious, and recognize in his assertion how difficult 
it is for a man to get free from the innate sense of a spiritual 
existence, for even in this he attributes it to the devil. Is his 
devil also the result of chemical action—another form of 
physical energy ? If matter and force alone exist where 
does he borrow his devil from ? A singularly unique spiritual 
existence ! 

Carl Vogt, after repeating the views of Cabanis, says : “ The 
appeal to a vital force is merely a periphrasis of ignorance. 


til] 

It constitutes one of those back doors of which there are so 
many in science, and which are the constant refuge of indolent 
minds who will not take the trouble to investigate what ap¬ 
pears incomprehensible, but are satisfied with accepting the 
miracle.” 

Dr. Louis Buchner, on Force and Matter, says : “ The notion 
of a vital force is reduced to a walking shadow, and exists 
only in the brains of such individuals as have lagged behind 
the sciences. All those who have specially studied any branch 
of natural science touching the organic w T orld, agree now in 
regard to vital force, and the term itself has become so ob¬ 
noxious that it is rarely used.” 

This is necessary before the views of the Physiological 
school can be admitted, for to acknowledge a vital force de¬ 
stroys the whole theory. But to assert there is no such thing 
as vital force, and to demonstrate the truth of such assertion, 
are two entirely different things. The more you study the 
claims of this school the more thoroughly will you be con¬ 
vinced that the basis of all its teaching rests upon mere as¬ 
sumption—a begging of the question, a reasoning petitio 
principii. They make great claims for it that it rests upon 
experiment, observation and experience ; to assert that there is 
mind and vital force is in no way disproved by asserting there 
is not. Has experience demonstrated in any other manner a 
negative result? 

I am aware that it is not popular to teach the antiquated 
doctrine of a vital force. Yet, notwithstanding this, I cannot 
accept, until it has been proved, the assertion as true that the 
physical, vital and mental forces are identical. 

According to Youman, heat, light, electricity and magnet¬ 
ism, which were treated of by the old writers as imponderable 
agents, are now no longer regarded as independent existences, 
—subtile fluids with peculiar properties, but simply as modes 
of motion in ordinary matter ; forms of energy which are capa¬ 
ble of mutual conversion. Heat is a mode of energy mani¬ 
fested by certain effects. It may be transformed into elec¬ 
tricity, which is another form of force producing different 
effects. Thus electricity will generate heat, and heat when 
operating upon a conbination of metallic plates will produce 
electrical action. A given amount of one force produces a 
definite amount of another. The assertion that mind and 
these forces are identical, cannot be demonstrated as true by 
this test, for no thought has been transformed into electricity; 
nor has heat, light, or electricity ever been exhibited as the 
equivalent of a definite amount of mental force. It may be 


[ 12 ] 

assumed but never can be proved, nor can it be proved that 
vital force and mind are identical. There is much greater re¬ 
semblance between nerve force and electricity than between 
mind and vital force. Thus the muscle with each contraction 
gives off electricity and as exhaustion follows ceases to show 
its presence.* This force, whatever it is, is closely allied in its 
nature to electricity. Yet that it is not electricity is shown by 
the fact that when sufficient time has elapsed after death for 
muscular contractility to cease, no current however strong will 
elicit a response from the then dead muscles. There was a 
force present that electricity could stimulate to activity, yet 
when absent renders electrical action without effect. We know 
that electricity will call muscle into play, will excite the sen¬ 
sory organs, causing light, smell, taste and sound to be 
perceived, yet we have no evidence that it will produce thought. 
It will give rise to physical activity but not mental in the 
same manner. Thought follows no known physical law. A 
single thought, expressed perhaps months or years before, 
looming up in consciousness, is often more powerful than all 
else in producing physical activity, yet it is not uniformly 
correlated in physical effects. Thus, what will cause one man 
to swear, stamp and gesticulate furiously, will not perhaps 
have any effect upon another, while a third may suppress, by 
an effort of the will, the rising storm. If we interrogate 
consciousness it responds that volition, the will power of the 
Ego, alone can suppress emotion and calm the tempest of 
passion. Passion may be excited, the emotions almost un¬ 
controllable as it were, yet some self-determining power says 
peace, be still; and immediately there is a great calm. Here 
is a force that controls other forces. It is self-acting and self 
determining. If nerve force be electricity, and will power 
identical, why is it that outside of the human brain they never 
act in this manner ? If you determine that mind and the 
motor power of the nerve centers that administer to volun¬ 
tary motion are the same, what do you do with involuntary 
muscular action, as the contraction of the heart, intestines, 
stomach, arteries, gland ducts, etc ? Are you prepared to 
admit that vital force, that hidden power which develops all 
living organisms, which rears the superstructure of the body 
from a simple cell, moulding and fashioning matter to a defi¬ 
nite form, in conformity to some original type, is but the ad¬ 
ventitious operation of heat, light or electricity, and differs 
from these other forces but in its “ mode of motion ?” 


* Radcliff claims that contraction results from the discharge of electricity, 
and not vice-versa. 






[13] 

Prof. Huxley, in his Physical Basis of Life (1870), sets forth 
the view that matter and life are inseperably connected. He 
claims that all bodies have some one kind of matter that is 
common to all,* and that their endless diversities are bound 
together by a physical, as well as an ideal, unity; that the 
mould upon the bread crust, the lofty California pine, or Indian 
fig tree which covers acres, the tiny animalcule of stagnant 
water, and the mighty leviathan of the deep, man, lord of 
creation, and the beast that bears him on his journey, are all 
moulded from the same matter of life; that there is a unity 
of power or faculty, a unity of form, and a unity of substan¬ 
tial composition. The matter of all bodies is the same in kind 
when traced back to its earliest state. This matter he terms 
“Protoplasm.” He declares this Protoplasm, or Physical 
Basis of Life, to be the clay of the potter, separated by ar¬ 
tifice, and not by nature, from the commonest brick or sun 
dried clod. 

But here Prof. Huxley loses sight of a very important fact, 
when he asserts that all living forms are of the same funda¬ 
mental character, and may be likened to the clay in the hands 
of the potter; for he asserts that all vital action is but the re¬ 
sult of the molecular forces of the Physical Basis, and further 
concludes, that all thought is but the expression of molecular 
changes in the matter of life, which is the source of all vital 
phenomena. Now, the moulding force and the clay moulded 
are not the same—the clay does not resolve itself into the 
baked and painted forms, but is moulded by an external force. 
Were we to analyze the clay, the paint, or the baked ware of 
the potter’s shop, our conclusions would be as sensible concern¬ 
ing the force that moulded it as are those of Prof. Huxley, in 
asserting that the phenomena of life are self-directing, and 
belong to the oxygen, hydrogen, carbon and other elementary 
compounds which enter into the composition of the body, and 
are said to have inherent to them the properties of vital and 
mental phenomena. His illustrations are most unfortunate for 
his theory, as they nearly always are when an attempt is made 
to set aside the Creator and substitute Force. They generally 
disprove what they set out to prove. If we make any infer¬ 
ences whatever from his illustrations, they certainly prove the 
contrary of the theory they are intended to sustain. 

Prof. Huxley declares that, under whatever disguise the 
Physical Basis of Life may take refuge, whether fungus or oak, 
worm or man, the living protoplasm not only ultimately dies, 


^Expressed by Agassiz in 1848, in a lecture at the Lowell Academy. 



[14] 

and is resolved into its mineral and lifeless constituents, but 
that these are the same and differ only in the manner the atoms 
are aggregated. Cooked meat he calls modified protoplasm 
and says of it, that it has only been altered, but not rendered 
incompetent to resume its old functions as matter of life. 

He says : “ a singular inward labratory dissolves a portion of 
this modified protoplasm, the solution so formed will pass into 
my veins ; and the subtil influences to which it is then subjected 
will convert the dead protoplasm into living protoplasm and 
and thus transsubstantiate sheep into man/’ 

He claims that the matter of life, i.e., that from w T hich all 
organized beings are formed, is identical, and that their re¬ 
spective organizations are due to the forces of the molecular 
basis. What is this “singular inward labratory” to which he 
refers, and the “ subtil influences ” to which digested food is 
subjected that converts it into living organisms ? Is it not vital 
force ? I will not contend that all flesh when deprived of vital¬ 
ity may or may not be resolved into some like, simple element. 
But, if all originate from the same basis and the forces of this 
molecular basis operate to form the various vegetable and an¬ 
imal organisms, why does this same force from the same mat¬ 
ter of life construct an animalcule and a whale ? Why does one 
part form the minute odium albicans, and another the white 
oak tree ? Is not the difference in the flesh of man and other 
influences due to the “ subtil influences ” to which it is sub¬ 
jected in the organism? It never is observed elsewhere, and 
shows that this “subtil influence” is a property of the organ¬ 
ization, and not of the original matter entering into it, and 
that it never assumes the character of the material substance 
composing the organization, until it has been subjected to its 
influence, or the influences of the forces belonging to the or¬ 
ganization. This power to assimilate new matter to itself 
gives to all organizations that character we term life. In¬ 
organic matter seems to be endowed with properties in some 
respects similar to organic. Thus the crystal will form from 
its mother liquor, each metal according to a definite form, 
and seems to obey the same law that operated to construct the 
body. But the force that constructs the crystal and that which 
constructs the body differs in this : you cannot remove it from 
the metal—a very slight cause often drives vital force from an 
organized body. Break a crystal, or piece of marble into 
many fragments and each preserves its integrity. Remove a 
portion of an organized body and it immediately undergoes 
change. To maintain its integrity it must remain in an in¬ 
timate union with the body from whence it derives vital powder. 


■ [ 15 ] 

If transformed into the substance of any other organism, 
this takes place only when brought under the “ subtile 
influences ” of the “ singular inward laboratory,” Nature has 
provided in such organism. 

Prof. Huxley says : “ If I sup upon lobster this same matter 
of life becomes a part of humanity. Were I to be shipwrecked 
and this action reversed, the same lobster might return the 
compliment by converting humanity into a crustacean.” This 
in no way proves that lobster and man are identical organ¬ 
izations, or that the forces of the molecular basis make this 
transformation, but it clearly shows that the forces peculiar to 
the organism of each, accomplish it. 

The great effort of so-called scientific men of the present day, 
is to decry Revelation and Faith, and base everything upon 
experience. Observe, as long as you will, the transformation 
of the matter of one organization into that of another, and 
your experience throws no light upon the nature and source of 
the forces operating, further than the phenomena resulting 
from their activity. If there is no such thing as vital force, 
what originates chemico-vital action, and what arrests it? 
Why will it not proceed as well in, what we term, a dead body, 
as in a living one ? Simply, because something is wanting in 
the dead body that is supplied in the living one. This invisi¬ 
ble something does the work. Must we remove it from the 
body, hold it up to public gaze before its existence will be 
acknowledged ? Is this to be the test of all our knowledge ? 
Must all faith be forever obliterated, and the word become ob¬ 
solete? If all our belief is thus subject to experience, how 
meagre will be our stock of knowledge. 

An amusing application of this theory occured a few years 
since, at a ministerial association held at Danville, Ills. A 
good brother, who had been reading some of this class of 
writers, who rest upon experience, declared that he preached 
only what he had personal experience to confirm. Some one 
inquired if he ever preached the doctrine of the final resurrec¬ 
tion of the dead. The good brother was greatly mortified at 
the failure of his theory. Thus it is with all who attempt to 
construct theories that will set aside the Creator, and elevate 
the phenomena of matter to His place. We are glad that 
men, of equal intellectual capacity, with more expanded rea¬ 
soning faculties, interpret nature differently. Beale: Life, 
Matter and Mind ; p. 4, says : “ He, who choses, may accept 
upon faith as an article of belief that all the action of living 
beings are due to ordinary forces only; but it is absurd to 
put forward such conclusions, as if it had been proved, or as 


[16] 

if it were capable of proof.” On page 130, he says : “All the 
energy, authority and influence this school can bring to bear 
will not succeed in forcing thoughtful and intelligent people 
to accept such assertions. What strikes one as most wonder¬ 
ful is, that any one should try to make people believe that 
ordinary force can form, or has formed, mechanism, or other 
things in this world capable of working or action.” 

Do you believe in this doctrine: That in all this fair earth no 
evidence exists of an intelligent cause that directs the forces ? Do 
you believe that the lightning, which, it is said, Franklin tamed, 
and which Morse taught to write, and which, amid the terrors 
of the storm, speaks of the power and glory of God, is the 
same blind force that reared your frame from the dust of the 
earth, moves your body as a nerve force, warms it, thinks, feels, 
reasons, and wills for you? 

No one disputes that all the ordinary forces operate in the 
living body, but they operate only in a body said to contain 
life, for this alone can utilize them. The presence of another 
and higher force seems necessary for the proper action of the 
physical forces. Life is an independent force, like mind—a 
force resident in the organization—at times but a transient 
tenant. When vital force ceases to operate, the physical forces 
are powerless. When vital force is active in a plant, the sun¬ 
light decomposes the compounds which nourish it—carbonic 
acid releases its carbon, which is deposited in the plant. Re¬ 
move this force, and the sun shines in vain upon it. The grain 
of corn, planted beneath the sod, puts forth its sprout before 
sunlight falls upon it. Stored up with the germ is sufficient 
nutriment to maintain its growth until it appears above the 
surface. When this store is expended, sunlight is needed to 
decompose the compounds that shall nourish it. We say Na¬ 
ture provides this energy; the materialist says it is the molec¬ 
ular basis that affords this power. The materialist urges that 
mind exhausts nerve force, and that nerve force wears out the 
body: Steam wears out an engine—is steam, therefore, a prop¬ 
erty of the engine? 

In order that you may be enabled to compare the views of 
the two schools, I will present in brief the argument upon 
which they rest their theories. First, that of the Physiological— 
then that of the Psychological school :* 

The Materialist believes not in the separate existence of 
mind, but says that we know only of its existence by its man¬ 
ifestations ; that experience alone must be our instructor, and 
that of a mind acting apart from matter, we have no experi- 
*On the relations of soul to matter, see Porter’s Human Intellect, pp. 16 to 40. 




[17] 

ence. As we have before stated, the fact that we have no such 
experience, is not conclusive evidence that mind can not so 
exist. It rather tends to show our limited knowledge, than the 
contrary. 

Another argument advanced is, that mental power is devel¬ 
oped only in a degree that corresponds with that of the physio¬ 
logical and anatomical development of the cerebral structures. 
Growth of mind keeps pace with growth of brain. Matured 
mind is only functional activity belonging to a fully developed 
cerebral organization. 

Again, it is alleged that the mind receives its store of knowl¬ 
edge through the senses—hence the mind is dependent wholly 
upon the body. The eye gives knowledge of light, color, dis¬ 
tance ; the ear of sound; the nerves convey ideas of resist¬ 
ance, extension, weight. The destruction of a single organ of 
sense deprives the mind of all knowledge to be obtained in 
that direction. As the organs of sense are one by one de¬ 
stroyed, so does the possibility of the mind diminish for the 
acquisition of knowledge. This goes farther than Locke and 
the Sensual school, who declared that there is nothing in the 
mind that has not first been in the senses. It shuts off all 
upon which the Mystics rest in their philosophy—i. e., that the 
mind may be in direct communion with God, and receive di¬ 
rect revelations of his will. It reduces the mind to a com¬ 
pound body, composed'of the senses, or makes it but the sum 
total of them, for, however else they may explain it, according 
to this theory we have no knowledge of mind further than that 
learned by the exercise of the senses, and in proportion as 
they are wanting, so is the evidence of mental existence di¬ 
minished. For it is clear by this process of reasoning that the 
organs of sense are not servants of the mind, but mind itself. 
By it, if the organs of sense did not first act, there would 
never be mental activity, and there would be increased mental 
activity in proportion as the senses are stimulated. 

It is true that the main process of developing the idiotic 
mind is through the senses, and unless aroused through them 
can never be aroused. If we regard the senses as only out¬ 
posts where sentinels are placed who give the mind notice 
within of all that is observed without, then it in no way fol¬ 
lows that they are other than sources of information. 

Again, and this is the strongest argument that is advanced, 
the materialist urges that mind is a property of brain, for the 
reason that all changes in the brain affect mental activity. A 
change in the circulation, either congestion, loss of blood, or 
a blood stream loaded with impurities; pressure upon the 


[ 18 ] 

brain substance; the irritation of inflamation; a disturbance 
in remote organs, suspends or modifies mental action. 

The advocates of this theory claim for it that it is but the ex¬ 
tension of ordinary physics to the brain. Thus low in the order 
of nature we have the attraction of gravitation and of cohesion. 
A little higher, chemical affinity, chemical action and combina¬ 
tion. By chemical laws bodies are called into existence that 
had no existence before—thus sulphuric acid, a violent poison, 
may unite with magnesia, a compound unlike either, a new or¬ 
ganization as it were. The lower bodies are regulated by 
mathematical laws, which is mainly force of gravity, and the 
higher by physical, which become more and more complex as 
we ascend in the order of nature. Thus, as we ascend from 
the attraction of simple particles of matter, as in cohesion, we 
next find the formation of crystals, still, however, obeying 
mathematical laws, in always assuming definite forms. To fol¬ 
low out the theories of this school, we must still extend this to 
the development of cell life and activity—to animal existence, 
and the functional activity of every organ of the body. 

Such are the grounds upon which rest the theories of the 
Physiological school, who claim that a cabbage head differs 
only in degree, not in kind, of energy, from the heads of those 
who accept its teachings. 

But, however exclusive and one-sided the views of this 
school may be, they have accomplished much for science, by 
inciting observation, experiment, and research. 

The Psychological school regards man as an intelligence, 
served by organs. In metaphysics they are termed dualists , 
because they regard the mind as an entity*—i. e., mind and 
body as two distinct organizations. This class includes those 
who accept the teachings of Revelation. They also believe in 
the immortality of the soul. There are many who believe that 
the mind is a property of brain, who claim that if man has a 
soul it is something distinct from the mind. But a soul with¬ 
out a mind is something inconceivable to us. The common 
view of the relation of mind and body is well illustrated by 
Plato, in the dialogue of Socrates and Alcibiades, first Aleib- 
iades. I give it as translated by Sir William Hamilton: 

Socrates. Hold, now, Alcibiades, with whom do you at 
present converse? Is it not with me? 

Alcibiades. Yes. 

Soc. And I also with you? Ale. Yes. 

Soc. It is Socrates, then, who speaks? Ale. Assuredly. 

Soc. And Alcibiades who listens? Ale. Yes. 

Soc. Is it not with language that Socrates speaks? 

* Entity , that having existence independent of the idea. 




[19] 

Ale. What, now ? Of course. 

Soc. To converse and to use language, are not these, then, 
the same? Ale. The very same. 

Soc. But he who uses a thing, and the thing used, are not 
these different? Ale. What do you mean? 

Soe. A currier—does he not use a cutting knife and other 
instruments? Ale. Yes. 

Soc. And the man who uses the cutting knife, is he different 
from the knife he uses? Ale. Most certainly. 

Soc. In like manner the lyrist—is he not different from the 
lyre he plays on? Ale. Undoubtedly. 

Soc. This, then, was what I asked you just now—does not he 
who uses a thing seem to you always different from the thing 
used? Ale. Very different. 

Soc. But the currier—does he cut with his instruments alone, 
or also with his hands? Ale. Also with his hands. 

Soc. He also uses his hands? Ale. Yes. 

Soc. And in his work he uses also'his eyes? Ale. Yes. 

Soc. We are agreed, then, that he who uses a thing, and the 
thing used, are different? Ale. We are. 

Soc. The currier and the lyrist are, therefore, different from 
the hands and the eyes with which they work ? 

Ale. So it seems. 

Soc. Now, then, does not a man use his whole body? 

Ale. Unquestionably. 

Soc. But we are agreed that he who uses, and that which is 
used, are different? Ale. Yes. 

Soc. A man is, therefore, different from his body? 

Ale. So I think. 

Soc. What, then, is man? Ale. I can not say. 

Soc. You can at least say that the man is that which uses 
the body? Ale. True. 

Soc. Now, does anything use the body but the mind? 

Ale. Nothing. 

Soc. The mind is, therefore, the man. 

Ale. The mind alone. 

A French writer, Gatien Arnoult, makes the following ap¬ 
peal to experience: 

“ I turn my attention on my being, and find that I have or¬ 
igans, and that I have thoughts. My body is the compliment 
of my organs; am I, then, my body, or any part of my body? 
This I can not be. The matter of my body, in all its points, 
is in a perpetual flux—in a perpetual process of renewal. I — 
I do not pass away, I am not renewed. None, probably, of 
the molecules which constituted my organs some years ago 


[ 20 ] 

form any part of the material system which I now call mine. 
It has been made up anew; but I am still what I was of old. 
These organs may be mutilated; one, two, or any number of 
them may be removed; but not the less do I continue to be 
what I was—one and entire. It is even not impossible to con¬ 
ceive me existing, deprived of every organ. I, therefore, who 
have these organs, or this body, I am neither an organ nor a 
body. 

“ Neither am I identical with my thoughts, for they are 
manifold and various. 7, on the contrary, am one and the 
same. Each moment they change and succeed each other; 
this change and succession takes place in me, but I neither 
change nor succeed myself in myself. Each moment I am 
aware or am conscious of the existence and change of my 
thoughts; this change is sometimes determined by me, some¬ 
times by something different from me; but I always can dis¬ 
tinguish myself from them—I am a permanent being, an en¬ 
during subject, of whose • existence these thoughts are but so 
many modes, appearances, or phenomena; I, who possess or¬ 
gans and thoughts, am, therefore, neither these organs nor 
these thoughts. 1 can conceive myself to exist apart from every 
organ; but if I try to conceive myself existent without a 
thought, I am unable. This or that thought may not be per¬ 
haps necessary, but of some thought it is necessary that I 
should be conscious, otherwise I can no longer conceive my¬ 
self to be. A suspension of thought is a suspension of my 
intellectual existence; I am, therefore, essentially a thinking, 
a conscious being; and my true character is that of an intelli¬ 
gence, served by organs.” 

Arbuthnot in a poetical way presents the same ideas : 

“ What am I, whence produced and for what end ? 

Whence drew I being, to what period tend ? 

Am I the abandon’d orphan of blind chance, 

Dropp’d by wild atoms in disordered dance? 

Or, from an endless chain of causes wrought. 

And of unthinking substance born with thought. 

Am I but what I seem mere flesh and blood, 

A branching channel with a mazy flood ? 

The purple stream that through my vessels glides, 

Dull and unconscious flows, like common tides. 

The pipes, through which the circling juices stray, 

Are not that thinking 7, no more than they; 

This frame compacted with transcendent skill, 

Of moving points, obedient to my will; 

Nursed from the fruitful glebe, like yonder tree, 

Waxes and wastes—I call it mine not me. 

New matter still the mouldering mass sustains; 

The mansion chang’d the tenant still remains; 

And, from the fleeting stream, repaired by food, 

Distinct, as is the swimmer from the flood.” 


[ 21 ] 

The Psychological school, like the Physiological, views hut 
half the subject. It maintains that no study of the brain, how¬ 
ever far it may be carried, chemically, anatomically, or physi¬ 
ologically, can throw any light upon the mysterious union of 
mind and matter. It studies only the agent. The Physiolog¬ 
ical school ignores the agent, admits no intervention of creative 
intelligence, divine, initiative, nor human free will; it denies 
all intelligent providential law, confounds subject and object , 
and satisfies itself with an analysis of the instrument, rather 
than aspire to a knowledge of the agent. It rejects the voice 
of conscience and of intuition, and has been likened by Joseph 
Mazzini to the man who analyzed the ink with which a poem 
was written, and declared that he had discovered the secret of 
the genius who wrote it. 

The Psychological school regards the mind as a distinct ex¬ 
istence, and the nerves and senses as only so many gates 
through which knowledge enters to it. Their arguments are 
that the phenomenon of mental action are unlike the phenom- 
enoa which belong to matter. The phenomenoa of material 
substances can be reduced to a common basis—they are dis¬ 
cerned by the senses. They can be felt, seen, tasted, touched, 
and measured. Mental phenomenoa are known only in con¬ 
sciousness—they can not be measured, weighed, touched, or 
tasted. They are.. wffiolly unappreciable by the senses. The 
phenomena of matter, as motion, taste, color, weight, density, 
sound, etc., can be appreciated by the senses. But who can 
measure the volume, weight, density, or velocity of thought ? 
Electricity, heat, light, and chemical affinity, obey their respec¬ 
tive laws, but wffiat code of laws will regulate a train of thought, 
or govern the production of a single idea? The physical forces 
are identified with the presence of matter, and have besides 
well known definite relations with matter. Thought, though 
dependent on the brain, can not be recognized as having a sin¬ 
gle property that characterizes these forces. The mind can 
recognize its own states, and distinguish its own action from 
that of every force around it. This is what is meant in meta¬ 
physics by the term consciousness. In consciousness we recog¬ 
nize the fact that, while heat or electricity can be conducted 
from one body to another, the mind retains its own identity, 
its productions are not capable of being conducted away, 
nature having made no bridge over which a thought can be 
carrried from one mind to another. In conscious mental action 
we learn that the mind is not the body, but distinct from it— 
its master, the mind can act in opposition to all the physical 
forces to a certain extent, and even vital force, as in resisting 


[ 22 ] 

the tendency to sleep, or fatigue, and in many ways assert its 
independence and/ separate existence. The mind is a control- 
ing, self acting power, matter inert. The energy that induces 
mental action is within, it can resist, or elect to act, through 
volition, under the influence of external influences, recogniz¬ 
ing this influence, hence rendering Consciousness the most 
credible witness introduced by either school. Writers of this 
school have advanced many theories to explain the union, or 
intercourse of mind and matter, and our lecture would be very 
incomplete without we presented the main doctrines, presented 
to explain this relation. 

Laromiguiere, “ Lecons de Philosophic,” has presented the 
theories of the Dualists under four heads: 

1st. Of the system of Assistance or of Occasional causes ; 2d, 
of the Pre-established Harmony; 3d of the Plastic medium ; 
and 4th of Physical influence. 

1. The first, or doctrine of Divine assistance maintains that 
there can be no possible communication between mind and 
matter. This was taught by Descartes, De la Forge, and 
Malebranche. It asserts that when there is motion in the bodi¬ 
ly organization, God excites in the mind corresponding repre¬ 
sentations. When thoughts arise in the mind, He expresses 
them by a corresponding movement in the body. 

God, according to the advocates of this scheme, governs the 
universe, and its constituent existence, by the laws according 
to which He has created them ; and as the world was origi¬ 
nally called into being by a mere fiat of the divine will, so it 
owes the continuance of its existence from moment to moment 
only to the unremitted perseverence of the same volition. Let 
the sustaining energy of the divine will cease, but for an in¬ 
stant, and the universe lapses into nothingness. The exist¬ 
ence of created things is thus exclusively maintained by a 
creation, as it were, incessantly renewed. God is thus the 
necessary cause of every modification of mind, and His 
efficiency is sufficient to afford an explanation of the union and 
intercourse of extended and unextended substances. 

“ External objects determine certain movements in our 
bodily organs of sense, and these movements are, by the nerves 
and animal spirits propagated to the brain. The brain does 
not act immediately and really upon the soul; the soul has no 
direct cognizance of any modification of the brain ; this is im¬ 
possible. It is God himself who, by a law which he has estab¬ 
lished, when movements are determined in the brain, produces 
analogous modifications in the conscious mind. In like man¬ 
ner, suppose the mind has a volition to move the arm; this 


[23] 

volition is, of itself inefficatious, but God, in virtue of the 
same law, causes the answering motion in the limb. The body 
is not, therefore, the real cause of the mental modifications; 
nor the mind the real cause of the bodily movements. Never¬ 
theless, as the soul would not be modified without the antece¬ 
dent determinations of the soul—the changes and determina¬ 
tions are in a certain sort necessary. But this necessity is 
not absolute; it is only hypothetical or conditional. The 
organic changes, and the mental determinations are nothing 
but simple conditions, and not real causes; in short they are 
occasions or occasional causes.” 

The sum of this, the Cartesian view, is that God is the only 
real agent in the universe. 

II. The second system is that taught by Liebnitz. This 
denies not only all connection between spiritual and material 
substances, but between all substances. The author of this 
hypothesis, who also maintained the view that man is composed 
of monads, explains the apparent communion of mind and 
matter, from a previously decreed mutual adaptation and co-ar¬ 
rangement of the Creator. This is the doctrine of pre-estab¬ 
lished or pre-determined harmony. 

Leibnitz reproaches the Cartesians with converting the un¬ 
iverse into a perpetual miracle, and of explaining the natural, 
by a supernatural order, this would annihilate Philosophy ; 
for, Philosophy consists in the investigation and discovery of 
the Second Causes which produce the various phenomena of 
the universe. You degrade the Divinity, adds Leibnitz, you 
make Him act like a watchmaker, who, having constructed a 
time piece, would still be obliged himself to turn the hands, 
to make it mark the hours. A skillful machinist would so 
frame his clock that it would go for a certain period without 
assistance or interposition. So when God created man, he 
disposed his organs and faculties in such a manner that they 
are able of themselves to execute their functions and maintain 
their activity from birth to death. This theory is, that “ God, 
before creating souls and bodies, knew all these souls and 
bodies; he knew, also, all possible souls and bodies.” 
Now, in the infinite variety of possible souls and bodies, 
it was necessary that there should be souls whose series 
of perceptions and determinations would correspond to the 
series of movements which some of these possible bodies 
would execute; for in an infinite number of souls, and in an 
infinite number of bodies, there would be found all possible 
combinations. Now, suppose that, out of a soul whose series 
of modifications corresponded exactly to the series of modi¬ 
fications which a certain body was destined to perform, and of 


[24] 

this body whose successive movements were correspondent to 
the successive modifications of this soul, God should make a 
man, it is evident that, between the two substances which 
constitute a man, there would subsist the most perfect harmony. 
It is thus no longer necessary to devise theories to account for 
the reciprocal intercourse of the material and spiritual sub¬ 
stances. These have no mutual influence—no communication. 
The soul passes from one state, one perception, to another, 
by virtue of its own nature. The body executes the series of 
its movements without any participation or interference of the 
soul in these. The soul and body are like two clocks accurately 
regulated, which point to the same hour and minute, although 
the spring which gives motion to one is not the spring which 
gives motion to the other. Thus the harmony which appears 
to combine the soul and body is, however, independent of any 
reciprocal action. 

This harmony w T as established before the creation of man, 
and hence it is called the pre-established, or predetermined, 
harmony.” 

III. The third hypothesis has for its author Plato. He 
illustrated the relation of soul and body, by saying : the soul 
is in the body, like a sailor in a ship; that the soul employs 
the body as its instrument, but that the energy, or life and 
sense of the body, is the manifestation of a different substance 
—of a substance which holds a kind of intermediate existence 
between mind and matter. This doctrine claims that this 
plastic medium participates of the two natures; it is partly 
material, partly spiritual. As material, it can be acted on by 
the body; and, as spiritual, it can act upon the mind. It is 
the middle term of a continuous proportion. It is a bridge 
thrown over the abyss which separates matter from spirit. 

IV. The fourth hypothesis, or that of physical influence, is 
the doctrine taught by the Schoolmen. It is the oldest of the 
four doctrines, and was advocated by Aristotle, and taught in 
the earlier schools of Greece. This is the commonly accepted 
doctrine of the Psychological schools of the present day, 
modified as each may think itself able to substitute a better 
hypothesis. This doctrine Laromiguiere sums up as follows : 

66 External objects affect our senses, and the organic motion 
they determine is communicated to the brain. The brain acts 
upon the soul, and the soul has an idea, a perception. The 
mind thus possessed of a perception, or idea, is affected for good 
or ill. If it suffers it seeks to be relieved of pain. It acts in 
its turn upon the brain, in which it causes a movement in the 
nervous system : the nervous system causes a muscular motion 


[ 25 [ 

ln the limbs, a motion directed to remove, or avoid the object 
which occasions the sensation of pain. The brain is the seat 
of the soul, and, on this hypothesis, the soul has been compared 
to a spider seated in the center of its web. The moment the 
least agitation is caused at the extremity of this web the 
insect is informed and put upon the watch. In like manner 
the mind situated in the brain has a point on which all the 
nervous filaments converge; it is informed of what passes at 
the different parts of the body; and forthwith it takes its 
measures accordingly. The mind thus acts with a real effi¬ 
ciency upon the body. This influence or action being real, 
physical in the course of nature, the body exerts a physical 
influence on the soul, the soul a physical influence upon the 
body. This system is simple, but it affords us no help in 
explaining the mysterious union of extended and unextended 
substance.” 

And now, gentlemen, with the theories of these two schools 
before you which will you accept. Will you ignore the 
existence of matter, and study only the phenomena of mind, or 
will you ignore mind and confound Cause and Effect. It is a 
metaphysical axiom that the effect can never be the cause.* 

The Physiological School studies only effects and raises them 
to the grade of causes. • Force is made to be self-acting and 
self-directing, the phenomena resulting from force are effects 
not causes. Mental phenomena bear the same relation to 
mind. If you believe that common force, or chemical action 
produces thought, take a brain to the laboratory of our distin¬ 
guished chemist, and ask him by any process known to 
chemists to produce a single thought. As w T e forewarned you 
we fear your conclusions are no clearer than before we began. 
We are unable to demonstrate to you clearly the process by 
which a single thought results, the relation of mind and 
matter by virtue of which mental phenomena are produced. 
We have shown you, more by inference than by direct proof, 
that mind is a final cause, a first cause, an ordinary, directing 
force, dependant upon a material world, a material organiza¬ 
tion, and physical laws for its operations and manifestations. 
I admit that every mental action is coincident with some vital 
change in the brain, but I do not admit that mental action 
consists in this vital change, more than that the movement, 
the wear and tear of an engine, is the force that moves it. 
Where else in nature do we find the same thing become at the 
same time cause and effect. The operation of an intelligent 
cause alone can satisfy the mind of man as an explanation of 

* I. e. the same thing can not be at the same time cause and effect. 



[ 26 ] 

the workings of the mind. The mind of a Creator is every¬ 
where displayed in all His works. It 

“ Breathes in our soul, informs our mortal part, 

As full, as perfect, in a hair as heart.” 

If you accept these views you run the risk of being called by 
the self styled scientific men of this generation, a saint. But 
remember, gentlemen, that weak minds, unaccustomed to bear 
the burden of thought, who accept everything as authority upon 
the opinions of others, when they come in contact with this 
class of men, who ridicule every accepted principle of truth 
and who have no reverence for Revelation, are easily turned 
aside and made to disown the teachings of their own consciences, 
and becoming skeptics, readily believe that education and 
social influence alone inculcates these eternal truths. But 
whether you accept my views or not, let me warn you that 
science which prides itself in its own wisdom, has in no age of 
the world sustained itself. It falls. “ Science without relig¬ 
ion is insane, reason without revelation gropes about in the 
dark, and Philosophy loses her ordination as Priestess of the 
Most High, unless she be faithful in her office, as bearer, of 
both incense and light.” 

With theories that develop man through successive degrees 
of animal existence from the lower forms of life, through the 
agency of self acting force, I have no sympathy more than 
those which make all force identical. I believe man’s origin 
more elevated. “ The hand that molded the dust into the abode 
of a sentient being, touched it with perfection; and no better 
type of form or finish will be required by the spirit of man 
through the dispensations of earth, be they dark or be they 
glorious, than a body like that in which the first man bowed in 
worship, or walked erect in fellowship with his God.” Truth 
ever is the same, whether accepted or rejected. Moral clouds 
may obscure it, skepticism shut it off as a cloud the Sun, yet 

“ Fond, impious Man ! thinkst thou yon sanguine cloud, 

Baised by thy breath, has quenched the Orb of day ; 

To-morrow he repairs the golden flood, 

And warms the Nations with redoubled ray.” 

But after all, in your conclusions your own judgments must 
guide you, whatever respect you may show me as your 
instructor the assertion of the poet will be realized : 

“T’is with our judgments as our watches; none 
Go just alike, yet each believes his own.” 


[27] 

With this conflict of opinion and diversity of judgment, how 
shall we study the mind. 

The Psychologist says : study phenomena. The Physiologist 
says : study the brain. Gentlemen, the common sense way is 
to study both. Take a practical view of the question. When 
a medical man is called into court to interpret the elements 
that constitute a case of insanity, does he figure before the 
court and jury brain cells, and processes, talk of connective 
tissue, of tubuli, of cortical and white substance ? Does he 
state how much the brain of the individual is deficient in 
phosphorus, that the laboratory wants stocking up; does he 
discuss brain circulation, the relative weight of brain to mental 
capacity? All questions that are legitimate in their true rela¬ 
tions to insanity. No, he becomes at once a Psychologist. 
He considers the power of Will, attention, memory, reasoning 
faculty and judgment. He makes his “ opinion ” up from a 
metaphysical stand point, and if physical symptoms exist 
indicative of corporeal derangement he details them to 
stengthen the presumption that insanity exists, but in no case 
would he on these alone risk an opinion that would affect his 
reputation. When we study electricity we study not only 
phenomena but materials. We learn what substances are good 
conductors and what are non-conductors. We study strength, 
weight, durability; and when we utilize steam, in the application 
of instruments to every day requirements. What would you 
learn of electricity from an analysis of the conducting wire ? 
What would you learn of steam though you dissected every 
engine in the land without you employed this motor power ? 
What do you learn of nerve force by an analysis, microscopic 
examination, or any test to which you can submit a portion 
of a nerve trunk ? The microscope, the scalpel, and the 
laboratory will give you an insight into healthy brain and nerve 
structure. Study the instrument. The instrument in oper¬ 
ation elicits phenomena that are indices of its perfect condition. 
Study the phenomena. The only true method consists in a 
thorough knowledge of the anatomical and physiological rela¬ 
tions of the brain, joined to a thorough analysis and classifica¬ 
tion of mental phenomena. With this in view, our next lecture 
will discuss the three divisions or departments of the mind, 
recognized by metaphysicians, the Intellect, the Sensibilities, 
and the Will, as a basis for a study of the varieties of insanity. 
When we study the pathology of insanity, the subject will 
receive due consideration from the physiological stand point. 

And now, gentlemen, in conclusion, let me beg of you not to 
despise any source of information that can afford you light to 


[ 28 ] 

guide you in the study of insanity. If because morality 
and religion have been based upon the views of the meta¬ 
physical school, if they are in harmony, or rather if they are 
blended, and you are skeptical, do not ignore its teachings lest 
you be charged with fanaticism or aught else. Is it more 
pleasing to you to believe yourselves bastards, the children of 
chance, the offspring of the physical forces, than to accept the 
Biblical account of the creation of man ? 

“ If man is thus an orphan at his birth, and an outcast in his 
destiny; if knowledge is to be his punishment and not his 
pride; if all his intellectual achievements are to perish with 
him in the dust; if the brief tenure of his being is to be 
renounced amid the wreck of vain desires, of fruitful hopes, 
and of bleeding affections, then in reality as well as in metaphor 
is life a dream.” 

There are but two sides to the question ; on one hand you 
have the conjectures of man, on the other Revelation. The 
Bible is not an expounder of science, but with no better light to 
guide us shall we accept it ? Shall we not acknowledge that in 
all that pertains to the spiritual, the mind of man, its Author, 
the Creator of mind, is the best expounder. 






* 




t 


library of congress 



0 021 946 418 6 















































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































